4.6 Article

Quantitative Determination of Gymnodimine-A by High Performance Liquid Chromatography in Contaminated Clams from Tunisia Coastline

期刊

MARINE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 579-585

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10126-009-9245-7

关键词

Clams depuration; Gymnodimine-A; HPLC; Mouse bioassay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative determination by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was performed for gymnodimine-A (GYM-A), a phycotoxin responsible for the contamination of Tunisian clams. This study demonstrates a rapid and reproducible HPLC-ultraviolet (UV) method for extraction, detection and quantification of GYM-A in toxic clams. The extraction of GYM-A from the digestive gland of clams in acetone, subsequent clean-up with diethyl ether and extraction with dichloromethane is the more valid protocol. Chromatography analyses were performed using a gradient of acetonitrile-water (10:90 to 90:10), containing trifluoroacetic acid (0.1%) for 20 min at 1 mL/min rate with a C18 column. Recovery rates exceeded 96%, and limits of detection and quantification were 5 ng/mL and 8 ng/g digestive gland, respectively. Repeatability and reproducibility were tested for various samples containing different levels of GYM-A. A significant correlation was observed between toxicity level of samples and the determined amount of GYM-A. Also, the persistence of GYM-A in contaminated clams from Boughrara lagoon was demonstrated. The kinetics discharge study of GYM-A in controlled medium, during 1 month, showed that the process of depuration was biphasic with an exponential discharge of 75% of the total amount of sequestered GYM-A during the first 12 days followed by a slow discharge (> 10%) for the subsequent days up to the seventeenth day. This is the first time that a quantitative study of GYM-A in clams from Tunisian coasts is performed through the development of a new method for detection and quantify of this phycotoxin. We found HPLC-UV a reliable and suitable alternative to the mouse bioassay.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据